Wooders v Tasmania - [2023] TASSC 35

[2023] TASSC 35

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Wooders v Tasmania [2023] TASSC 35
PARTIES:	WOODERS, Ann Louise
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO/S:	1046/2019, 655/2020, 593/2021, 389/2022
DELIVERED ON:	22 September 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:	5 July 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Bail – Recognizances – Forfeiture and estreatment – Relief from estreatment and reduction of liability – Recognizance of $20,000 for man who breached non-contact condition – Application for return of deposit – Cross application for forfeiture – Forfeiture of $8,000 ordered.

Bail Act 1994 (Tas), ss 7, 19, 20.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3005]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: F Radin

Solicitors:

Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASSC 35
Number of paragraphs:	33

Serial No 35/2023 File No 1046/2019
655/2020 593/2021 389/2022

ANN LOUISE WOODERS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J

22 September 2023

1 Anne-Louise Wooders applies under the Bail Act 1994 for return to her of $20,000 deposited to secure compliance by Stephen Williams with conditions of his bail. Over the period of more than five years between July 2017 and September 2022, Mr Williams was progressively charged with a number of serious indictable crimes. He spent a significant part of that period in custody either serving sentences or on remand. For the rest of the time he was on bail. The State opposes return of the deposited sum to Ms Wooders and applies for orders that the sum be forfeited and, moreover, for payment of an additional amount it says is payable by Ms Wooders pursuant to a promissory recognizance. The State's application is made on the basis that although there was no occasion on which Mr Williams failed to appear to answer his bail, he committed other breaches of bail conditions between the end of December 2020 and September 2021.
2 For the reasons which follow I will order that part of the deposit be forfeited but remainder is to be returned to Ms Wooders.

The history of the bail orders

3 A series of bail orders were made concerning Mr Williams over a protracted period. In the proceedings before me Ms Wooders explained that she is not related to Mr Williams but had promised his mother, before her death about 20 years ago, that she would try to take care of Mr Williams and his three brothers. She had, she said, a close relationship with him since then.
4 In July 2017, Mr Williams was charged with possessing a firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order. By then he already had a lengthy criminal history. He was admitted to bail on 7 December 2017. In addition to residential, curfew and reporting conditions, there was a condition of bail that:
"Ann Louise Wootas (sic) of [address specified] in Tasmania deposit the sum of $5,000 with the Registrar of the Supreme Court and enter into a recognizance in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wooders v Tasmania and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] TASSC 35
Decision Date: 22 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wooders versus Tasmania, the applicant, Wooders, sought relief from the forfeiture of a $12,000 deposit given as part of a recognizance agreement, while the respondent, Tasmania, applied for the forfeiture of the full $20,000 recognizance. The case arose from a breach of a non-contact condition imposed as part of Wooders' bail conditions. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the legal issues surrounding the forfeiture of recognizances and the relief available to the applicant under the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to relief from the forfeiture of his deposit and, if so, what the appropriate amount of relief should be. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's breach of the non-contact condition constituted a breach of the recognizance agreement and, if so, what consequences flowed from that breach. The court was tasked with balancing the need to uphold the integrity of the court's bail conditions against the applicant's right to seek relief from an otherwise punitive outcome.

The court found that the applicant's breach of the non-contact condition did indeed constitute a breach of the recognizance agreement, triggering the forfeiture of the $20,000 recognizance. However, the court also held that the applicant was entitled to some relief from the forfeiture, as the breach was not of a fundamental nature that would warrant the full forfeiture of the deposit. The court ordered that $8,000 of the recognizance be forfeited, with the remaining $12,000 being returned to the applicant. This decision recognised the need to provide some measure of relief to the applicant while still upholding the principle that breaches of bail conditions should have consequences.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that $8,000 of the recognizance be forfeited, with the remaining $12,000 to be returned to the applicant. The court's decision provided a balanced approach to the issues of bail, recognizances, and the consequences of breaching bail conditions, ensuring that the applicant was held accountable for his actions while also providing some relief from the harsh consequences of full forfeiture.

Orders